[spiralk]

I think one of the big problems with VR (and also AR) is that the large companies lack focus and have been trying to make generic do-everything devices to cover many applications. It may make sense from a business point of view since it would ensure the largest user base. However for such a new technology that has a wide variety of potential applications, this means that no one application is given the resources and attention it really needs. Hardware upgrades have negligible impact, software and ux design is not focused on a specific need, and many fundamental issues are left unsolved.

VR companies are trying to make the iPhone of VR without considering that the iPhones success was built on decades of computing fundamentals. Before its possible to make good hardware and XR experiences, we'll need basic research in optics, display panels, tracking, multiview eye tracked foveated rendering, gaze correction, vari-focal, lossless wireless... the list can go on and on. Very few want to invest in solving these problems and simply wants to build a huge ecosystem with a large user base. Even Facebook/Meta, who have invested the most, have failed to tackle any of the major problems even after 10 years of being in the field. Since 2016 when 6-DoF tracked controllers became the norm, there hasn't been any major advancements other than slightly better visuals.

Looking at XR technology that has been successful, its usually because of a very clear focus on a specific application. VR flight and racing simulations with professional headsets like the Varjo appear seem far more developed. With a motion rig, these are good enough for training professionals. VR has solidified its place its this niche market at least. Microsoft's success often gets overlooked, but they have a $20B defense contract to supply IVAS AR headsets to the US military. If more companies focused on solving one of fundamental problems, it should eventually be possible to create a mainstream mass-market device that everyone will want to use.

[crooked-v]

Well, the wireless part is already pretty much here. With a good Wifi 6E or 7 router, Virtual Desktop (https://www.vrdesktop.net) is good enough that you're limited by your GPU power more than anything else.

[spiralk]

There's several problems with that. 1. The latency - even if fine for slower games its enough to cause slight vestibular-ocular mismatch and discomfort. 2. Compression and visual quality - not only is the quality worse but its also cost using more GPU resources for the lower quality compared to a DisplayPort signal. 3. the Wifi 6E RF bands and protocols are not suited for lossless, low latency video transmission. Especially as we approach 4K per eye resolutions, the bandwidth is not there and relying on additional encode/decode hardware adds more latency and artifacts. We also need a solution that would allow for multiple users in a single building to use wireless VR, which I don't believe will be possible with the RF bands available.

There was new Wigig standard that may have solved this, but I believe its not being used anywhere.

[jdashg]

Crooked-v is not hypothesizing: People already use this setup, myself included! (Actually I am even only using 5ghz not 6ghz)

On-device reprojection/ATW lowers the bar for bandwidth and latency considerably, and many of us spend hours and hours with VR streaming wirelessly.

Separate in-room WAPs would be the only real recommended modification for multiple vr users in the same building.

[spiralk]

I am aware people use it, but its only a partial solution that introduces new issues. For certain users it may be sufficient but even if you ignore the latency and compression issues, being unable to have multiple headsets adjacent makes it an incomplete solution if the goal is spreading the technology to new users. Even multiple WAPs won't get around the bandwidth congestion.